https://www.yahoo.com/politics/it-s-either-trump-or-1317957587198006.html
There’s no hard and fast rule in politics to help you know when you’ve crossed over from mere extremism into some dark borderland of reckless ignorance. Generally speaking, though, when you find yourself defending the wisdom of the Japanese-American internment, you probably left that boundary behind a few miles back.
That’s the intellectual wasteland Donald Trump stumbled into this week when he issued what should hereafter be known as the Marvin Gaye Manifesto — his proposal that all Muslims be banned from entering the country until we can figure out “what’s going on.” This immediately drew unusual condemnation from the new Republican speaker of the House, the Senate majority leader and the party’s national chairman, along with the local Republican chairs in Iowa, New Hampshire and South Carolina.
The interesting question is what happens from here, because the way I see it, the cold war between Trump and the Republican governing establishment, which everyone hoped throughout the summer and fall might just resolve itself, has now become a zero-sum contest. And Republicans find themselves faced with an existential threat that has no parallel for either party in my lifetime.
Either Trump or the Republican Party as we’ve known it can come out of this election without having been politically destroyed — but almost certainly not both.
Before we climb into the time machine and survey the scenarios here, let me say that I still tend to think Trump won’t be the Republican nominee. I realize the national and state polls say otherwise (CNN’s latest survey shows him with a commanding lead in New Hampshire), and I acknowledge that one of the dangers in columnizing — at least when you have a healthy disdain for all the blather on cable TV and social media, as I do — is that you can sometimes dismiss conventional wisdom merely because it’s conventional and not because it’s wrong.
Having said that, though, most of the prophets who keep telling us that Trump is unstoppable are those who take a pretty grim view of Republican politics generally, and who are easily persuaded that the majority of conservative voters are unthinking and bigoted. Their predictions mostly reflect their own distrust of the electorate.
In fact, at this point in the race, as Stuart Stevens, the strategist behind Mitt Romney’s 2012 campaign, put it when we talked this week: “You, I and Donald Trump have all gotten the same amount of votes for president.”
Trump’s support in the polls — which has generally hovered around 25 or 30 percent of the primary vote — may well be inelastic, meaning that nothing he says or does can shake it. But the window he once had in which to build on that support substantially has probably closed.
In other words, it’s not so much that Trump’s War on Islam will suddenly cause him to plummet in polls or lose any significant ground; it’s that his ratings-driven rhetoric may well have trapped him exactly where he is, with nowhere to go but down.
This means Trump’s success is entirely contingent on the rest of the field remaining chaotic and fractured, which seems unlikely to me. Already, polls show Ted Cruz rising fast in Iowa, and Marco Rubio and Chris Christie may be getting some separation in New Hampshire
To start off with, I've never really liked Trump. He has been a life long Democrat and friend of the Clintons. His Progressive tax policies and positions on health care I find distasteful. I've always found him to be just another arrogant New Yorker.
Having said that, I'm sick of the lies being written about him, specifically this from the OP.
"when you find yourself defending the wisdom of the Japanese-American internment, you probably left that boundary behind a few miles back. "
I've never heard Trump defend the locking up of Japanese Americans. What I have heard him say is that comparing the locking up of American citizens becaue of their race is not comparable to preventing Islamic immigrants from coming into the US. Again, Trump has said we need to put a hold on Islamic immigrants until the US can come up with a better way to vet Islamicists who are coming in that have declared war against the US. He has repeatedly said that the ban on Muslims would be temporary until a proper immigration policy can be created.
Enough of these blatant strawmans. It's getting pretty embarrassing for the media to be increasingly partisan no matter how badly the GOP wants to destroy Trump.
The funny part is, I just heard that the latest poll shows that Trump is up another 8% after the Muslim comment. Could Trump be the one that breaks the mold in terms of the demonstrating the ineffectiveness and incompetence of the lame media? If so, to be against the establishment and the media is the new key to political success it would seem.
Could this be the first time in history where state propaganda in the press results in the exact opposite of its intended purpose?
Hilarious.
Originally posted by whodeyHe is Dangerous
To start off with, I've never really liked Trump. He has been a life long Democrat and friend of the Clintons. His Progressive tax policies and positions on health care I find distasteful. I've always found him to be just another arrogant New Yorker.
Having said that, I'm sick of the lies being written about him, specifically this from the OP.
"when ...[text shortened]... ate propaganda in the press results in the exact opposite of its intended purpose?
Hilarious.
Originally posted by whodeyThe problem with you Whodey, is you need to get more fun out of life. 😀
https://www.yahoo.com/politics/it-s-either-trump-or-1317957587198006.html
There’s no hard and fast rule in politics to help you know when you’ve crossed over from mere extremism into some dark borderland of reckless ignorance. Generally speaking, though, when you find yourself defending the wisdom of the Japanese-American internment, you probably left that ...[text shortened]... ast in Iowa, and Marco Rubio and Chris Christie may be getting some separation in New Hampshire
This is the third consecutive poll to find that Republican voters generally support Mr Trump's policy.
Vince Cable on BBC 1's Question Time describes Donald Trump as "appalling" and then points out that Nick Griffin, of the British National Party, was never the same force after his arguments were demolished on that very programme. "The whole idea of banning people who are not violent but are extreme in their views is very dangerous," he says.
David Dimbleby takes the hint. "I must make a note to invite Donald Trump on Question Time," he says before adding, "If you'll let him in."
Donald Trump has cancelled a trip to Israel, shelving what was shaping up to be an awkward visit by the Republican presidential front-runner following comments that managed to offend Muslims and Jews alike.
Mr Trump had been due to meet Mr Netanyahu later this month but announced he was "postponing" until "after I become president" and that he "didn't want to put Mr Netanyahu under pressure".
Mr Trump has the Republican party in turmoil over his call for a temporary ban on Muslims entering the US following last week's mass shooting by an Islamic militant couple in San Bernadino.
In the UK a petition calling for Mr Trump to be barred from the country became the biggest ever on the Government's website, passing the previous record of 446,482 signatures.
Mr Trump, the clear front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination in 2016, remained unrepentant in the face of worldwide condemnation.
Thursday was just a typical day on the campaign trail for Donald Trump. He won the endorsement of a major police union, saw several polls suggest Republican voters supported his stance on Muslims and endured another barrage of withering critcism.
Sir Peter Westmacott, British ambassador to the US, broke with diplomatic protocol to take the Republican candidate to task over claims that Muslims have made some parts of London into no-go areas
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/donald-trump/12044983/Donald-Trump-muslims-New-Hampshire-Muhammad-Ali-UK-petition-latest-news-live.html
Originally posted by whodeyYou never hear what you don't want to hear:
To start off with, I've never really liked Trump. He has been a life long Democrat and friend of the Clintons. His Progressive tax policies and positions on health care I find distasteful. I've always found him to be just another arrogant New Yorker.
Having said that, I'm sick of the lies being written about him, specifically this from the OP.
"when ...[text shortened]... ate propaganda in the press results in the exact opposite of its intended purpose?
Hilarious.
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump defended his call to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the United States by comparing it to former President Roosevelt's 1942 executive order that authorized the internment of 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent.
"This is a president highly respected by all, he did the same thing," Trump said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Tuesday.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-defends-muslim-plan-by-comparing-himself-to-fdr/
Originally posted by no1marauderAre you being blatantly dishonest again or do you not read you own articles?
You never hear what you don't want to hear:
Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump defended his call to temporarily bar Muslims from entering the United States by comparing it to former President Roosevelt's 1942 executive order that authorized the internment of 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent.
"This is a president highly resp ...[text shortened]... y.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/donald-trump-defends-muslim-plan-by-comparing-himself-to-fdr/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"President Roosevelt's 1942 executive order that authorized the internment of 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent.
"This is a president highly respected by all, he did the same thing," Trump said on ABC's "Good Morning America" Tuesday. "If you look at what he was doing, it was far worse."
"We are now at war," he added. "We have a president that doesn't want to say that, but we are now at war."
He shied away from the analogy during an earlier interview on MSNBC's "Morning Joe" when host Joe Scarborough asked whether the internment camps violated American values.
"I am not proposing that," Trump said. "This is a whole different thing."
_______________________________________________________
Trump is saying that FDR prevented Japanese from immigrating to the US, but he did far worse, which is lock up Japanese Americans as well.
Again, if you can read. Trump said:
"I am not proposing that," Trump said. "This is a whole different thing."
Denying immigration to possible enemy combatants is NOT unconstitutional, rather, it's the Presidents Constitutional duty to keep his constituents safe.
However, locking up Japanese American citizens IS illegal and bigoted and IS unconstitutional.
You really should just let this drop or continue to make yourself look more and more foolish and dishonest, the choice is yours.
Originally posted by whodeyWhat a pathetic liar you are. YOU wrote this:
Are you being blatantly dishonest again or do you not read you own articles?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"President Roosevelt's 1942 executive order that authorized the internment of 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent.
"This is a president highly respected by all, he ...[text shortened]... drop or continue to make yourself look more and more foolish and dishonest, the choice is yours.
I've never heard Trump defend the locking up of Japanese Americans.
Well you have now:
Trump: This is a president highly respected by all, he did the same thing.
And denying every single member of a religion entry to the US IS bigoted and unconstitutional.
Yeah, I look "foolish and dishonest". Find a mirror, A-hole.
From another perspective:
But in some ways Trump’s remarks go further than Roosevelt’s wartime policies. Eric Muller, a law professor at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, noted that while the precedents set by Roosevelt make it legal for a president to take actions against nationals from enemy nations, Islam is not a country.
"He in a sense is saying we are at war with Islam, and therefore he wants to claim the authority to take action against anybody who is of Muslim faith," Muller said. "Those precedents, about Italian, German and Japanese aliens, they're not relevant to that."
http://www.ibtimes.com/trump-muslim-ban-fdrs-japanese-internment-camps-how-anti-islam-debate-compares-2218243
No matter how many times right wing extremists say it, the US is not, and cannot, be at war with Islam and therefore blanket discriminations against all Muslims are far worse than anything done in WWII.
Originally posted by no1marauderI've already explained this yet you are either thick, or more likely to much of a partisan shill, that you are unable to see the truth here.
What a pathetic liar you are. YOU wrote this:
I've never heard Trump defend the locking up of Japanese Americans.
Well you have now:
Trump: This is a president highly respected by all, [b]he did the same thing.
And denying every single member of a religion entry to the US IS bigoted and unconstitutional.
Yeah, I look "foolish and di ...[text shortened]... therefore blanket discriminations against all Muslims are far worse than anything done in WWII.[/b]
When Trump said, "This president highly respected by all, he did the same thing" means that FDR restricted immigration into the US.
Then he later said of the Japanese American lock up, "I'm not proposing that, that is a whole different thing", he is saying that he is not advocating that dingleberry.
Your posts really have deteriorated of late.
And no, I could care less what some Prog Obama lawyer says about the Constitution. He and Obama can shove the NDAA up their arse. Despite what they ramble on about, the Constitution does promise due process under the law no matter how many stupid laws/regulations they pass
Sickening.
Originally posted by whodeyYou really are an idiot; Trump brought up the Japanese internment as a defense to his own plan saying they were similar. Sure, he then said FDR's plan was worse, but also declined to say he wouldn't have supported it at the time.
I've already explained this yet you are either thick, or more likely to much of a partisan shill, that you are unable to see the truth here.
When Trump said, "This president highly respected by all, he did the same thing" means that FDR restricted immigration into the US.
Then he later said of the Japanese American lock up, "I'm not proposing that, that ...[text shortened]... ise due process under the law no matter how many stupid laws/regulations they pass
Sickening.
And he was NOT talking about "restricting immigration" as far as FDR; that's just something you made up.
I have no idea what the last paragraph of ranting and raving means.
Originally posted by no1marauderAgain, what does this mean to you?
You really are an idiot; Trump brought up the Japanese internment as a defense to his own plan saying they were similar. Sure, he then said FDR's plan was worse, but also declined to say he wouldn't have supported it at the time.
And he was NOT talking about "restricting immigration" as far as FDR; that's just something you made up.
I have no idea what the last paragraph of ranting and raving means.
"I am not proposing that," Trump said. "This is a whole different thing."
It is pretty self explanatory, even though he could have explained himself a whole lot better. Trump is saying that comparing locking up US citizens to denying foreigners admission to the country is apples and oranges by "I"M NOT PROPOSING THAT. THIS IS A WHOLE DIFFERENT THING."
The reason he brought up FDR was simply to show that people have been targeted in the past as enemy combatants due to their race. Granted, Trump is targeting people based upon religion, but then, if a certain religion or certain race of people declare war on you, you are left with no alternative but to target them in order to defend yourself.
Now do I think that Trump will end up targeting all Muslims, no. I think he wants to hit the pause button and talk about how to vet the radical elements of Islam that are at war with the US. How hard is this to understand?
Trump is far different from FDR in that he is not targeting US citizens and thus not violating the Constitution in any way. Foreigners have no Constitutional rights in the US because citizenship is not a world wide foreign entitlement.
This is what troubles me, the Dims under Obama and the GOP were complicit in passing the NDAA which grants the government the right to round up its citizens without due process. Let us not forget that the GOP was complicit with rounding up Japanese Americans, just like with the NDAA that Obama and the Dims signed into law.
The NDAA is far worse than FDR imprisoning Japanese Americans. At least under FDR you knew you were safe if you were the right race, and at least his rabid bigotry was out in the open for all to see.
However, with the NDAA, no one is safe. Anyone deemed an "enemy" can be rounded up and never seen again. It is not out in the open, and there will be no debates regarding its Constitutionality because there will be no one to point to it actually being implemented. All there will be, is missing persons.
Why is the GOP not talking about this? Why is Bernie Sanders and Clinton not talking about this? It is because no candidate on either side really gives a damn about the Constitution. It shows me that we are all just being played, again. All we have is a ruse of an election, on the false premise of choice.
It would not be hard to slam Obama and everyone who supported the NDAA. It's not like their Prog lawyers can remotely defend this legislation as being Constitutional. So what do they do, they just ignore it entirely.
Sickening.
The only remote hope we have here is for the states to rise up and start amending the Constitution to take away power from the federal government. The Article V movement is the only legal way to combat abuse in the federal government.
Then again, I guess all they need to do now is just round them up and take them away forever, so I'm not sure how this is even possible now.
Originally posted by whodeyTargeting people based on religion violates the US Constitution, Period.
Again, what does this mean to you?
"I am not proposing that," Trump said. "This is a whole different thing."
It is pretty self explanatory, even though he could have explained himself a whole lot better. Trump is saying that comparing locking up US citizens to denying foreigners admission to the country is apples and oranges by "I"M NOT PROPOSING THAT ...[text shortened]... no Constitutional rights in the US because citizenship is not a world wide foreign entitlement.
No "certain religion" had declared war on the US.
Fundamental Rights belong to ALL people not just citizens of the United States.
Originally posted by no1marauderYou are not only a liar, you are also a stupid liar. 😏
You really are an idiot; Trump brought up the Japanese internment as a defense to his own plan saying they were similar. Sure, he then said FDR's plan was worse, but also declined to say he wouldn't have supported it at the time.
And he was NOT talking about "restricting immigration" as far as FDR; that's just something you made up.
I have no idea what the last paragraph of ranting and raving means.